An intruder intending to express his anger or disdain for the Ramseys would have had no reason to write a meaningless ransom note. A kidnapper would not have left both the note and the body. If the parents were involved in this together, as so many assume, such a note might serve to throw the police off the track, but only if the body were found, days later, in some remote area. Or never found. With the body hidden in the house, where it is sure to be discovered, the note only creates problems for the Ramseys, the only ones who could "logically" have written it. If they were not planning on getting the body out of the house before the police came, then why would they write an obviously phony note?

Also, why was the note hand printed? Why not print it via computer? Or paste words together from newspapers? If the parents, or anyone at all close to the family, wrote it, they would be risking exposure for sure.

Answers

No intruder would have had anything to gain by writing the ransom note. No intruder would have any reason to write it. A kidnapper would have taken the child (or her body) with him. If something had gone wrong with his plan, he would have had no reason to leave a possibly incriminating note. Someone intending to frame John or Patsy would not have written the note in his own hand, as that would be evidence of an intruder. The conclusion is simple: there was no kidnapper. There was no intruder. The note must have been written by someone on the inside -- and it does indeed read like a staged kidnapping attempt.

docG it's very simple. b/c he wanted to. just b/c u can't think of a reason why you would not do so, does not mean an intruder would not have some idiosyncratic reason to do so. 1- many of these objections you argue for would apply for the Ramseys, why didn't the Ramseys' print it? why write it in their own hands. second, there is a long exhausted list of serial killers from famous ones like Jack the Ripper to the Zodiac sending HANDWRITTEN messages to LE.

you can apply this "reasoning" to any unsolved crime involving serial killers and handwritten messages. The zodiac killer had no reason to write a handwritten "incriminating" note that cold be traced to him. BTK had no reason to do so, yet he did (and was caught).

docG has written a blog ironically titled "solvingjonbenet" where he writes

docG wrote: New Improved Intruder TheoryWe've seen all sorts of intruder theories, but none I've ever seen can explain 1. why a ransom note was left yet no one was kidnapped and 2. why the body was hidden in that tiny basement room. However, there is in fact a scenario that could account for these two things, though to my knowledge the only person who ever suggested it was someone on one of the anti-Ramsey forums arguing that this must have been what Patsy and John had in mind when they staged their kidnapping for the police. I'll get to that aspect in a moment, but for now, let's consider it purely as an intruder theory:

An intruder enters the house. Possibly a burglar. Possibly a pedophile. Possibly simply on a lark. Since there was no sign of forced entry, we can assume he has a key. He locates JonBenet, or simply encounters her, sexually assaults her, and kills her. Then he gets an idea. If he makes this look like a kidnapping, he could make some money out of it. He finds Patsy's notepad and writes a ransom note. Then he hides the body of his victim in the little windowless room, where no one is likely to look for it. He leaves the note where he assumes someone will find it the next morning. And then he is off. His plan is to call the Ramsey's home the following morning, as stated in the note, and instruct John as to where he should drop off the money.

This looks like a pretty good scenario, as it apparently accounts for some of the strangest aspects of the case: the fact that the note was written while the kidnapper was in the house, rather than beforehand; the fact that the victim was never actually taken from the home; the reason why the body was hidden.

But it also has some serious problems. First, it has many of the same problems as every other intruder theory: why no clear sign of the intruder; why is all the so-called intruder evidence inconclusive rather than the obvious evidence one would expect to see all over the place; why no footprints; why no fingerprints; why was nothing taken from the home; and if the intruder had a key, then what about the scene at the basement window, especially the suitcase propped against the wall, and also the packing peanuts from the window well, found on the floor beneath the window. Since there was no sign of forced entry at that window, or anywhere else, then how do we explain that suitcase and those packing peanuts?

There is also the question of why anyone would want to leave evidence that could be traced back to him, in the form of a hand written note? Or why that person would want to take so much time to write it, knowing someone might wake up and he could be discovered. If his plan is to collect a ransom, a note isn't necessary. He could simply have called the Ramseys first thing in the morning, with instructions on the ransom amount and where to deliver it.

The oddest part of this scenario concerns the "intruder's" plan as outlined in the note. For such a plan to work, this person would need to collect that money as soon as possible. Why give your victims time to think about what to do, time to have second thoughts and contact the authorities after all; time, also, for the body to decay and begin to smell -- sooner or later it is going to be discovered. Yet the kidnapper tells John to expect a call "tomorrow" rather than later that day. There's been some confusion over the meaning of that "tomorrow," but for the writer of the note there was no confusion at all. Clearly "tomorrow" meant tomorrow, i.e., between 8 and 10 AM the following day, i.e., the 27th, NOT the 26th, the day the note was found.

There is no way John could have collected the ransom prior to 8 AM on the 26th. Nor would there have been time for him to be "rested" as suggested in the note. The note writer clearly intended for the call to be expected the following morning. And if the "kidnapper" knows there is a body rotting away in the basement, waiting to be discovered, then why on Earth would he have wanted John to wait a full day before instructing him as to where to deliver the ransom? Under such circumstances, very clearly, the intruder would have called first thing on the morning of the 26th with his instructions, and would have wanted the money delivered as soon as possible.

So. Sorry if the heading of this post gave you Ramsey defenders out there any false hopes. My "new improved theory" is presented in the interests of completeness, to make sure I've left no stone unturned in the investigation of this case. As I see it, this is far more convincing than any other intruder theory I've ever encountered. But it too has some serious flaws. There is still no way to make sense of any intruder doing all that was done that night.

As far as something of this sort having been on the Ramseys' mind in staging their phoney "kidnapping," as was alleged by the author of the "new, improved" theory, this too won't hold water. If this was in fact what they had in mind when the police were called, then they did a good job of keeping it to themselves. To my knowledge, no such scenario was ever suggested by John, Patsy, or anyone else on their legal and investigative team. Certainly nothing of the sort was suggested by Lou Smit, who admitted he was unable to account for the intruder's motives in leaving a note yet not taking his victim. If this was what they were staging, surely they would have found a way to put that idea into the heads of the investigators. Since there is no sign they did any such thing, I see no reason to accept the author's original premise. It's an interesting theory. No more than that.

docG wrote: First, it has many of the same problems as every other intruder theory: why no clear sign of the intruder; why is all the so-called intruder evidence inconclusive rather than the obvious evidence one would expect to see all over the place; why no footprints; why no fingerprints; why was nothing taken from the home

docG you didn't do your homework. Shoe and palm prints were found, and many of the items like the cord tape fiber hair are unsourced to the house.

the other issue - why does an intruder have to think and behave sensibly?

many of docG's claims are refuted by real life crimes, including unsolved murders.

it's clear docG has never done the most rudimentary research into crime.

one instructive crime that refutes docG's is the murder of April Tinsley

this is 8-year-old April Tinsley

let's review this claim by docG

docG wrote:No intruder would have had anything to gain by writing the ransom note. No intruder would have any reason to write it.

not only did her killer murder April Tinsley but he also left MULTIPLE handwritten messages in HIS OWN HANDWRITING.

Investigators have reason to believe that the same person who wrote a message on a barn door in 1990 claiming responsibility for the murder of 8-year-old April Marie Tinsley also left multiple notes at different residences in the Fort Wayne area in 2004. April was abducted on Good Friday in 1988 as she walked from a friend’s house. Her body was discovered in DeKalb County three days later.

Investigators are asking for the assistance of the public in answering two questions:

1) Do you know the author of these notes?

2) Have you seen other notes like these?

The assistance of the public in circumstances like these has proven to be invaluable in past cases. The Fort Wayne Police Department asks the public to report any information regarding the identity of the writer, the discovery of other communications, or any other piece of information that may be related to this case, even if it is believed that this information has already been reported or seems insignificant. The public is encouraged to provide information via any of the following methods:

he left photos of his leg and penis on a bed masturbating (but his face is out of view)

AND he left semen on April Tinsley. For the convenience of police, he left used condoms with those notes, with his semen as tested by DNA.

if we were to apply docG/solvingjonbenet "reasoning" then April Tinsley's killer should not even exist.

The fact of the matter is everything docG/solvingjonbenet said an intruder would NOT do are behaviors that April Tinsley's killer did do. It's clear that April Tinsley's killer is playing a "catch me if you can" with LE.

April Tinsley's killer takes great pleasure in April's death, he threatens other girls with murder, and he takes pleasure in a "catch me if you can" game with LE. April Tinsley's killer has a twisted sense of humor, as he said "I liked April Tinsley's HAHA!"

docG wrote:The conclusion is simple: there was no kidnapper. There was no intruder.

DocG, maybe this wasn't a kidnapper for ransom money. Have you researched other child murders and other children who were the targets of intruders?Heather Coffin was murdered and sexually assaulted in her own home while her parents slept. There was semen which led to the arrest and conviction of her murder. Australia's Mr. Cruel was an intruder who kidnapped young girls, and did make ransom demands, but ultimately he did not collect on ransoms, his interest was purely sexual.

Maybe he's acting out of a compulsion or a fantasy. His fantasy or compulsion requires that he kill a kid, hide her in the house, and write a ransom note, as a kind of joke.

docG, here's a thought. maybe the intruder is a serial killer like Zodiac killer, BTK/Dennis Rader, Ted Bundy, OCCK. Maybe Jonbenet's killer has a twisted sense of humor similar to April Tinsley's killer. Maybe killing Jonbenet was the point, and the "ransom note" is a joke. In his twisted sense of humor, he takes pleasure in the thought that the Ramsey's think their daughter is still alive, but nope, she's dead.

You may not find it funny, but to the killer, it's hilarious.

docG wrote:Someone intending to frame John or Patsy would not have written the note in his own hand, as that would be evidence of an intruder.

maybe he was trying to imitate Patsy's handwriting. If so he's been successful.

Seriously, who are you to say what a killer will or will not do? Maybe Jonbenet's killer just wanted to do so. He doesn't care about any of the concerns you raised. He just wanted to do so. Not for any reason that makes sense to you. How would you explain the choices and reasons of April Tinsley's killer, or any other serial killer who has provided a handwritten written communication to his victims or to LE?

to answer this longstanding objection as to why he left a body and ransom note,

the killer may have been influenced by this 1993 movie

as for why he wrote a ransom note, are you aware that the sentence "If we catch you talking to a stray dog, she dies." most likely originates from Dirty Harry?" Did you know what Scorpio did? Have you ever seen the 1971 movie Dirty Harry?

Scorpio did this

the following is plausible based on what we know of serial killers and killers like the killer of April Tinsley

he wanted to murder Jonbenet for the fun of it. some killers like to kill, it's fun and enjoyable. after killing jonbenet, he sees a notepad and then writes a RN, giggling and laughing at how funny it is they think Jonbenet is still alive when they attempt to pay the ransom money, but instead, he knows they're dead. this is not a particularly complicated scenario. you know there are also murderers who kill, and when you ask them why they did it, they can't tell you why. they just did. even BTK/Dennis Rader said he killed b/c of a compulsion he called factor-X. there are also instances of adults filming themselves having sex with kids, and even uploading it on child porn sites, where they were seen, traced, and arrested. they did something that could be traced to them, they went ahead and did it anyway, and it got traced and they were arrested. maybe like Zodiac killer and Jack the ripper et al, he wanted to taunt or toy with police.

since docG entire blog solvingjonbenet and all his posts are based on those objections listed above, it's safe to conclude it's all wasted effort.

April Tinsley's murder is particularly instructive since killer's semen was collected, DNA profile entered into CODIS. To date this is no match. As far as known it appears to be a one-time killer. So Jonbenet's killer could have been a one-time offender.

I can't say with any certainty if Jonbenet's killer was a one time offender, but if she were a victim of a serial offender, my top 2 suspects are the OCCK and Mr. Cruel.

for OCCK, he is known to taunt LE/parents, and he cleans up the child's body as a kind of taunt. He has provided LE a written communique. his motive

I tell you what makes him do it it Vietnam, we there together, Frank and me, oh Frank not his real name I call him that here. Nam screw up your mindtoo. Tell you something else he killed lots of little kids then with medals for it. Burned them to death bombed them with napalm it's real becautiful there doc. He wants the rich people like people in Birmingham to suffer like all of us suffered to get nothing back for what we did for out country. Hes not a monster like you think he really loves children especially that little girl for 3 weeks not doing it because he hates childrens but doing it because he hates everybody else out there and this be his way to get even and get back at everybody.

But I cannot do it any more he says he wonts but I just know he is going to kill some more. I swear I had no idea no idea he going to kill that first little boy the one with blond colored hair. I shouldn8t ever never helped but trapped too late helped him stay uncaught, I am just as guilty as he is. I cant go on like this I fell I like to die.

as for Mr cruel, he wrote on Karmein Chan's car pay back Asian drug dealer, more and more to come. The Chans had to prove to Le and public opinion that they were not asian drug dealers. So Mr. Cruel obviously learned a lot from that experience, about what happens when you leave written messages at crime scenes.

Serial killers come from different backgrounds, attain different levels of education, and hold various types of jobs. However, many serial killers do have at least one thing in common: the desire to communicate regarding their crimes. Killers from Jack the Ripper to the Son of Sam often provide clues to their identities, their motives—even their future targets—through crime scene notes, letters to the media, calls to police, messages scrawled on victims, and, increasingly, email and other technology. Here, Gibson takes a look at ten notorious serial killers, their crimes, their victims, and their communications to uncover the hidden clues into the minds of these unusual and dangerous people.

What compels a serial killer to leave a crime scene message or to call the police to discuss their crimes? What are the purposes of the messages themselves? What do they say about the individuals? How can investigators use such communications to track down these elusive killers? How do killers use these communications to attract new victims? Through a careful examination of messages from such killers as the D.C. Snipers, the BTK Killer, the Zodiac Killer, Jack the Ripper, the Black Dahlia Avenger and others, Gibson reveals aspects of their communications that give us a window into the psyches of these criminals.

A tarot card bearing a taunting message was found near the scene of one of the sniper attacks that have terrorized the Washington, D.C., area. As police try to determine whether the card is a message from the killer, or merely a prank, they may be thinking of past serial killers who have jeered at police — often in clues that led to their eventual capture.

Here is a look at some of the cases:

The Unabomber: Over the course of 18 years, Theodore Kaczynski carried out bombings that left three people dead and 29 injured. Investigators dubbed the killer the Unabomber because the original targets were associated with universities and airlines. He was caught when he released the ultimate taunt — a 35,000-word "manifesto," which he demanded newspapers print. When they did, his brother recognized his writing style and turned him in. Kaczynski was sentenced in 1998 to four life terms.

Son of Sam: David Berkowitz was caught in 1977 after a yearlong crime spree in New York during which he killed six people and wounded seven. A note he left at a crime scene read, in part: "I am a monster. I am the 'Son of Sam.'" Berkowitz sent several more notes, one to a reporter. Putting together the clues, the police eventually caught him. He is now serving a 364-year prison sentence.

The Zodiac Killer 1: There have been two Zodiac Killers. The first was confirmed to have killed five young people in the San Francisco area in the 1960s and 1970s, but he claimed a total of 37 victims. He was never caught, even though he sent a total of 21 letters to local newspapers, revealing details about the murders only the killer could know, enclosing in some envelopes swatches of cloth snipped from one of his victims, and signing off "Zodiac."

The Zodiac Killer 2: The second Zodiac killer attacked New York in 1990, shooting four people with different astrological signs, killing one. He wrote several notes to local newspapers and vowed to kill one person born under each of the 12 signs. Heriberto "Eddie" Seda was caught in 1996 and sentenced to at least 83 years in prison.

Hillside Strangler: This name, coined by the media, was actually two cousins who abducted, raped and killed 10 young women in the Los Angeles area in the late 1970s. The attackers taunted police by leaving their victims on hillsides, in areas where they were sure to be found — often near police stations. Angelo Buono and Kenneth Bianchi were eventually caught.

Jack the Ripper: The killer in one of the world's oldest and most notorious unsolved mysteries also taunted police through letters. Shortly after the second of the five murders he would commit between August and November 1888 in London, he identified himself as "Jack the Ripper." A subsequent letter included part of a kidney that he said came from one of his victims. In that letter he wrote, "Catch me when you can."

There are many excellent compilations that discuss the vagaries of serial killers and their various predilections and, in some cases, psychopathy.1 Clues From Killers offers a different perspective to understanding serial murderers. Drawing on publicly available government and library archives, Gibson (2004) describes the crime scene communicative behavior of serial killers to create “a cohesive narrative” (p. 4). The criminal careers of ten serial killers span from 1888 to 2002 and the data are analyzed by conducting integrative research and rhetorical criticism. The rhetorical process adopted by Gibson (2004) involves quoting the message, describing its content and appearance, and analyzing its content and form.

One of the strengths of this book is the choice of serial killers that are reviewed. A common theme of other analyses of this type of criminal involves sampling only the more well-known killers for the analysis. Gibson (2004) clearly did not choose this option.2 Three of the lesser known serial killers included are the Mad Butcher, John Robinson, Sr., and William Heirens. The Son of Sam, the DC Sniper, the Unabomber, the Zodiac, the BTK Strangler, Jack the Ripper, and the Black Dahlia Avenger are all much more recognizable to the lay and specialized reader alike.

More importantly, the author includes extensive excerpts from serial killer communications via mail, writing on walls, and other mediums. These include crime scene communication as well as other crime-related messages (e.g. after a killing, between killings). These carefully selected communications are placed within their social context as adequate case history information is provided to the reader in order to establish the significance of the communication under analysis.

The overall conclusions drawn add to our current knowledge base on serial murderers. Gibson (2004) finds that a “consistent compulsion to communicate characterizes these serial killers” (p. 209). In most cases, communicating with society and law enforcement was imperative for the selected killers examined. In their communications they left clues, taunted and insulted law enforcement, re-injured victims’ loved ones, threatened to kill again, made demands and offered explanations for their behavior (see pp. 210-211). A brief comparative analysis suggests that each killer had different motives to communicate (e.g. a form of venting). In fact, “it is what they disclose about themselves that reveals a greater reality” (quoting Joel Norris (1988), p. 212).

However, this reviewer feels that the rhetorical analytical approach is insufficient to grasp the broader themes that may (or may not) be present in these ten cases. The communication is presented and then quoted by the author; however, the interpretation is limited as few no cross-case comparisons are made. Thematic cross-cases analyses could help to shed some light on communication etiologies these killers and others have in common.

Gibson (2004) makes a very strong case for the importance that communication methods, form, and content have for the apprehension of serial killers. The author rightly advocates for further research in this area. This book would serve as a good supplemental text for a course on violent crime or serial killers. Students and researchers alike can benefit from this fresh approach to extant data.

2 Although the author does not explicitly state the reason for choosing these killers, after reading this work, I believe they were chosen for theoretical relevance to the main concept of interest – that is, communication.

in conclusion, docG/solvingjonbenet's objections are total bullshit. the forensic expert witness testimony has eliminated the Ramseys as authors of the ransom note, which of course debunks his theory and other RDI theories like Andrew Hodges/Brother moon, Steve Thomas, etc. The basis for any investigation is science, and the IDI relies on science, the RDI are fringe crackpots who deny it.